• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Justice Department memo reveals legal case for...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
marincounty said:
These drone strikes are practical. They are relatively cheap and are effective. I would much rather have a drone strike than invade an entire country using thousands of troops and tons of military hardware and costing billions of dollars, to catch one man suspected of gathering weapons of mass destruction which he didn't have because of bad intel.
This is the president whose good instincts led to the death of Bin Laden. I trust his decisions a lot more than that of the last administration and their proven failures.
If you are overseas preaching death to America, I want a bomb to drop out of the sky onto your head.
Click to expand...

So you'd want to drone strike someone who potentially is innocent?

So once Obama leaves office does that power leave with him? After all it was he who killed OBL, not the past or future President.
 
Incorruptible said:
Nah, One of the worst with obama, fdr, wilson and many others
Click to expand...

You really think FDR was one of the worst Presidents ever? How can someone that shitty be reelected to office 4 times?

All the Presidents you seem to detest rank the highest on historical rankings...could this mean you are one of the dumbest motherfuckers who post on this forum? That is a rhetorical question of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
marincounty said:
These drone strikes are practical. They are relatively cheap and are effective. I would much rather have a drone strike than invade an entire country using thousands of troops and tons of military hardware and costing billions of dollars, to catch one man suspected of gathering weapons of mass destruction which he didn't have because of bad intel.
This is the president whose good instincts led to the death of Bin Laden. I trust his decisions a lot more than that of the last administration and their proven failures.
If you are overseas preaching death to America, I want a bomb to drop out of the sky onto your head.
Click to expand...

This is some shortsighted thinking. You complain about the previous admins incompetence while giving the OK to this admins killing of american citizens without trial. Now what happens when Jeb Bush is in office in Jan 2017? Still going to be singing high praises for this obvious trampling of rights?

And why does preaching death to america allow a bomb to be dropped on your head? Squashing the right to trial isnt enough? Need to crush freedom of speech as well?
 
I become more frightened of my government almost daily.

It almost makes me want to quit work and stop paying into the system. The only way to legally fight these monsters. Once missiles start landing on American soil and start killing Citizens from these drones. I will resort to illegal measures to fight these monsters.

Anybody who says this is ok needs to keep their mouth shut. People aren't going to react too kindly to this. If you are going to side with the government, seems stupid to me to put a bullseye on your own back.
 
eskimospy said:
Pretty horrendous. The whole 'trust us he was a bad guy' system of justice that we have created over the last ten years is something (I hope) future generations will look back on in shame.
Click to expand...

If they do we will probably arrest them for it.

eskimospy said:
No. Only in times where arresting them isn't really possible. That is unlikely to be anywhere in the US.
Click to expand...

Anyone remember David Koresh? Do you really believe that they will not use this in the US?
 
Last edited:
michal1980 said:
And the left hated bush and all he stood for, saying everything he did was wrong.


So wheres the left now when their boy is doing what bush did?

Oh thats right, you want faux outrage, look at the left.
Click to expand...

What left are you talking about ? Ron Paul ?
 
All I see are a bunch of people crying about something they're imagining up in their heads. You make it sound as if the American government have been playing nice all throughout our history up until this article.

Let's not forget The Trail of Tears, Japanese Internment, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, and more recently the invasion of Iraq based off of false information. With the proliferation of the media of our generation, I would like to think that the government are held a bit more accountable for their actions, so honestly, outrage not found. Again, all you schoolgirls crying over this are just a bunch of doomsday spouting drama queens.

One more important thing, agent orange contamination in Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
SMOGZINN said:
If they do we will probably arrest them for it.



Anyone remember David Koresh? Do you really believe that they will not use this in the US?
Click to expand...

The fact that the most recent example (which is itself highly debatable) that you can think of is nearly two decades ago is not a very good argument for your position.
 
momeNt said:
So you'd want to drone strike someone who potentially is innocent?

So once Obama leaves office does that power leave with him? After all it was he who killed OBL, not the past or future President.
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting the thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed in the war? Also the thousands of US troops killed and maimed in this war of convenience.

I would rather have less people killed-period. Would I like it if no innocents were killed, absolutely. Comparing a drone strike to an invasion, yes it is definitely preferable.

The US has perpetrated many horrible attacks. Nixon's bombing of Cambodia killed thousands possibly millions.
US support of Central American dictators killed thousands of innocents. Bush's war killed thousands of innocents.
The collateral damage of drone strikes, while still terrible, is tiny when compared to the damage of launching a war. Can you see the difference?
 
brandonb said:
Oh you mean that one guy who had firearms (protected under 2nd amendment)
Oh wait. The guy who was a cult leader (protected under 1st amendment)
Oh snap. The guy who molests little girls! Send in the tanks! Burn them all to death!

How about Ruby Ridge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-Ih4H70MM
Click to expand...


You seem to gloss over some things inregards to Waco. Yes it was a clusterfuck, but thats because of the Davidians more so than the government.
 
This is a giant "Boy who cried wolf" situation. The right has taken to making a conspiracy, controversy, or rage out of so many made up bullshits that the first time they actually have something to be upset about, it's near impossible to care. The country is burned out on the righty rage machine. When there's 3-5 a week of "Obama swatted at a fly during a speech, he hates insects. Is Obama at fault for the shortage of honey bees pollinating our crops? News flash, Obama causing famine by killing off bees!!!1!1oneone!!!", it's hard to generate any emotion about an actual thing to be upset about.

Simple truths here. If a terrorist is plotting against the US, they're still a terrorist if they're a US citizen. If they're in the US, well then we have law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction and can apprehend them. If those terrorists are not in the US, well then unless we're ok with invading another country again, we don't have as many options. So it becomes either invade and apprehend, attempt a small team incursion and apprehend (you may recognize that from the movie Blackhawk Down and how well that went), trust a foreign government who is just as likely sheltering them to apprehend them, drone strike, or let em sit until they kill hundreds or thousands of Americans. It's kind of a shitty choice all around.
 
monovillage said:
Tell me, was it my Casablanca spoof or the link to it, or my being afraid of the U.N. slapping Obama's wrists that makes you think I'm doing anything but laughing at you hypocrites?
Click to expand...

Keep waving your arms and pointing fingers at the other side. You have been divided and the conquering is moving apace.
 
marincounty said:
These drone strikes are practical. They are relatively cheap and are effective. I would much rather have a drone strike than invade an entire country using thousands of troops and tons of military hardware and costing billions of dollars, to catch one man suspected of gathering weapons of mass destruction which he didn't have because of bad intel.
This is the president whose good instincts led to the death of Bin Laden. I trust his decisions a lot more than that of the last administration and their proven failures.
If you are overseas preaching death to America, I want a bomb to drop out of the sky onto your head.
Click to expand...

I concur. Don't see a problem when it comes to terrorists and traitors. Many people here have no issue with people taking justice in their own hands with their guns instead of letting the authorities and justice system get involved.
 
The president is a puppet. There are people behind the scenes who literally laugh at the groveling masses who think that the theater of American politics is genuine.
 
Genx87

No website involved. Used my own brilliant mind.

A hostage situation is not an invalid comparison. You confuse the knowledge of of who is specifically threatened and their assumed proximity to the threat with the value of the threat. The sure knowledge of a small threat does not make it of greater value than a larger threat that is less well defined in terms of target and opportunity.

And the suggestion that a hostage taker could turn himself in and preserve his life is no different than a terrorist doing so.

The government at all levels has always been been making life and death decisions when faced with a threat. In the modern world, we are no longer faced with just common domestic threats on a regular basis. As our country's interests, assets, and citizens have spread around the world, so have the real and potential threats against them. If we knew an armed group was speeding away with 20 pounds of Plutonium they had just stolen, which of you here would argue to exercise restraint of deadly force on the basis that they had made no threat against anyone? That we knew of no concrete plans to use it against us?

An extreme argument? Maybe. But still demonstrative that we all probably have some limit on how high a level of threat we will tolerate before we conclude that deadly force without judicial oversight is an appropriate and prudent response.

Yes, we should have a discussion of what those limits should be and who should be responsible for determining when those limits have been reached. We really haven't provided our government with much guidance so far and they are winging it.

So let's have that discussion, leave all of the partisan bullshit out of it, and see if we can reach a reasoned consensuses on what reasonable and prudent people should do. If we can distill all of the emotion, fear, and politics of it, maybe we can guide our government to rational responses we find acceptable and honorable while still working for our safety and security.
 
It was only a matter of time before this cartoon became a reality...

1079ckLARGE-drone-assassina.jpg
 
So tell me again the case against Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or other Libertarians candidates for government office and how they are worst choices versus the DemoCrips and RepubliBloods.
 
Capt Caveman said:
I concur. Don't see a problem when it comes to terrorists and traitors. Many people here have no issue with people taking justice in their own hands with their guns instead of letting the authorities and justice system get involved.
Click to expand...



Who has proven that they are terrorists or traitors?? There has been no trial. That's the problem with all of this, you are taking the word of the branch of government that has never been granted the right to judge/jury and executioner.

That's some Judge Dredd bullshit. Are we living in Megacity now?

Without a fair trial there is no proof that someone is a terrorist or collaborator or secessionist or communist or traitor or undesirable. You can't just declare someone something without a trial and think that justifies assassinations and executions.

That's some third world tin-pot dictators shit.
 
DucatiMonster696 said:
So tell me again the case against Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or other Libertarians candidates for government office and how they are worst choices versus the DemoCrips and RepubliBloods.
Click to expand...

The case against Ron Paul? Two words:
Austrian Economics.

It would take a lot of drone strikes to cause as much damage to US citizens as he would cause just through his cartoonish understanding of economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top